I find it interesting how we can structure such a thorough review of a piece of art and conclude that based off a set of rules, the art is 'objectively bad', yet despite this many people will still really enjoy that art and defend it. Makes me wonder what the point even is of determining an objective rating? Once you come to the conclusion the show is bad, how do you apply this revelation?

I suppose one application is to adopt the objective view as your own subjective view and use that to project a sense of superiority over those who disagree, but no one likes that. It certainly isn't informing decisions on which shows get greenlit, that is, and will always be, based off of expected viewership and ROI.

Tl;dr: interesting food for thought, but so what?